In this final debate, centered on foreign policy, Romney and Obama agreed that “crippling sanctions” are the way to defeat the Iranian dictatorship. They’re both wrong. Sanctions only hurt democratic governments.
Totalitarian governments answer to nobody. Ever heard of Cuba? Sanctions never did a thing to unseat Castro. Totalitarian dictatorships control every waking moment of the people’s lives. The people of Iran may suffer from these sanctions, but not their dictators. If anything, the dictators are now even more determined to build their nuclear weapons and start using them.
We’ll know once Iran has nuclear weapons. The way we’ll know is that they will have used them—almost certainly on Israel.
Obama claims that if Israel were attacked, America would “stand with Israel.” So what? By that time, Israel will look like Japan after it was nuked in World War II.
Frankly, I don’t believe Obama. I don’t believe he’d stand by Israel, even then. The man is practically a pacifist. And if I’m wrong about that, the majority of the Democratic Party certainly would not let him retaliate after a nuclear attack on Israel.
Does anyone seriously see Obama joining with Israel to launch a nuclear counter-attack on Iran, after Iran has nuked Israel? With Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank standing by his side? I certainly don’t. In Obama’s second term, we may have an opportunity to find out.
Obama is unwilling to support Israel now—before they’re attacked. Under Obama, the United States will not even talk to Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu about preemptive, conventional strikes against Iranian weapons plants. Obama keeps talking about peace talks and sanctions. The sanctions are probably nothing more than window-dressing so he can claim he’s doing something.
To come out and say, “I’m with Israel if they’re attacked” – when the threat Israel (and the world) faces is a nuclear Iran – would be like promising to stand by the United States only after Hitler had won World War II. It’s absurd. Romney missed an opportunity to call Obama on this absurd dishonesty, in part because he undercut himself by supporting the fallacious “sanctions” against Iran.
As Romney correctly pointed out, America cannot have national security without a strong and sound economy. We don’t have that. As both Romney and Iran have pointed out, America’s unsustainable debt makes America a weak nation. Iran laughs at us, and Romney is rightly alarmed. Obama merely sneers.
Obama’s solution to the national debt is to increase taxes while continuing to spend, spend and spend. He’s right that tax cuts will not reduce the debt and deficit. But neither will tax increases. Experience has shown, time and again, that increasing taxes lowers the rate of economic growth – leading to, among other things, fewer taxes to be collected.
The only way to reduce the national debt is to cut spending. Obama denies he wants to cut defense spending, but defense spending is going to be cut massively, come January. That’s what “sequestration” refers to – cuts in defense, so federal domestic welfare state programs can survive and flourish.
Obama claims that America “must stand with democracy.” Wrong again.
Democracy refers to the rule of the mob—not individual rights. What makes a country free is its protection of the individual, not the mob.
Democratic vote is a proper method for electing representatives and leaders; but it’s not a blank check for sacrificing some (or one) for the many.
Most of our modern-day leaders are ignorant of this contradiction. Obama embraces the contradiction, perhaps because he has been so successful at persuading a (slim) majority to live under the dependence of a big, nurturing government entitlement state. Clearly, he wants this for the rest of the world as well. Maybe he thinks the United States should borrow even more to pay for it.
Romney expressed frustration that China acts like an outlaw country. But China is an outlaw country. It’s still a Communist country in name. In practice, it’s an economic fascist dictatorship. Business is permitted, but only at the pleasure of the government (kind of like American business is becoming). The Chinese government does not respect the individual rights of its own citizens. Why on earth would it respect anyone else?
Obama says that we have to “develop the economic abilities” of third world nations. How about restoring economic freedom to the United States? It would be an inspiration and serve as indirect pressure on the dictatorships in other countries to open up their markets. As America moves away from liberty and individual rights, so does the rest of the world. If America reversed course, the future of human liberty and prosperity would be bright.
Obama complains that America’s free market system ships jobs to China, because of self-interest. Actually, self-interest is the very thing that could save us from China. Self-interest would mean the exact opposite of Obama’s economic policies. If Obama freed America from the chains of regulation and redistribution, we would leave China’s fascist, pseudo-capitalist system in the dust. It wouldn’t take much. But instead, Obama doubles down on private enterprise in America with Obamacare, environmentalist regulations, the threat of new and always increasing taxes, and unsustainable national debt—and then blames our problems with China on capitalism and self-interest!
This man Obama thinks he’s brilliant, as do his supporters. Is it ignorance? Evasion? Or both? Whatever it is — it’s truly staggering.
America’s second President, John Adams, said: “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak.”
This sounds a lot like American enemies throughout its history, up through and including Iran.
It also sounds a lot like our current President.
Dr Michael Hurd
Latest posts by Dr Michael Hurd (see all)
- Bill Nye: The Tyrant Guy - 2016.04.20
- Europe Sacrifices Free Speech for Political Correctness - 2016.04.10
- Bill Clinton Exposes The Hypocrisy Of “Black Lives Matter” Protestors - 2016.04.09
- Acts of War in Europe: Brussels Takes Another Hit From Radical Islam - 2016.03.22
- Trump Is Not Responsible for Violence Against Him - 2016.03.16